1 Welcome Introductions and apologies

1.1 John Galligan welcomed officers to the meeting and explained that in the absence of Mary Vine-Morris, who sent her apologies, he had been asked to chair the meeting in his capacity as vice chair.

2 Notes of the last meeting and matters arising

2.1 YB provided a progress update on action point 113. Following a proposal from the Data Advisory Group, the Learning Records Service is considering in more detail how access to Unique Learner Numbers and Personal Learning Records can be given to local authorities, and the associated contractual requirements. 2.2 DC and EG asked whether any changes were made to the Annual Statement of Prioritises (ASoP) following feedback at the last OSG meeting. YB informed officers that the YPES Board reviewed the document in light of comments made. A decision was taken to nuance the language around activities for the 19 plus age range. However, there was consensus that where local authorities had existing statutory duties, the ASoP should be bold and clear about fulfilling these.

2.3 In Hounslow there had been significant challenges with the Youth Contract provider (Urban Futures), particularly reaching young people and providing appropriate support. After discussions with Urban Futures, it was agreed the delivery of the programme would be sub-contracted.

2.4 Prevista had been in contact with local authorities to offer the opportunity to become direct delivery partners. Based on the terms, it would be unlikely boroughs would choose to do so given the high levels of risk.

2.5 Minutes from the previous meeting were approved.

3 Raising the Participation age (RPA)

(a) Pan-London drop-out and referral system

3.1 At the London RPA regional event on 27 November, it was agreed that London Councils would work with local authorities to explore the feasibility of a pan-London drop out/risk of drop out referral system.

3.2 Systems at a sub-regional level already exist to record joiner/leaver data and this information is shared across the sub-regional units via the London index. However, not all providers share information as a matter of course and the timeliness of information sharing needs to be significantly improved under RPA.

3.3 The development of a system would be split into three phases with the first stage, a feasibility study, due to commence in April. Officers reviewed the draft survey that would form part of the study and recommended:

3.3.1 Question 8, replace the ‘%’ symbol with the word ‘percentage’

3.3.2 Question 19, replace wording ‘do you think there should be’ with ‘Are you interested in exploring’

3.3.3 Communications with borough officers should clearly state the aim and purpose of survey to encourage responses.

3.4 Officers requested that there is continued engagement with OSG about the system to allow the opportunity feed into its development. There was consensus that for the system to be effective it should be publicised to education providers by June.

AP140: Pan-London drop out and referral survey to be circulated to 14-19 Leads incorporating changes suggested by members

(b) Participation report

3.5 Based on the latest statistics, the percentage of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) stood at 4.7 per cent (a 0.3 per cent decrease on the previous month), which was below the national average of 5.7 per cent. There had also been a reduction in the number of 16-18 year olds whose participation status is ‘not known’ for the past three months for 2012/13. However, concerns remained over borough performance and it was confirmed that conversations had taken place between the YPES Board and respective DCSs.

3.6 In February, the DfE revised the national participation figures originally released in June 2012. The revision was due to the Office for National Statistics revising their mid-year population estimates following the 2011 census. The revised figures indicate lower than previously reported participation. 3.7 The revision corrects the London anomaly of reporting over 100% participation for 16 year olds and brings the figures more closely into line with those reported through NCCIS. However, a challenge remains over the reporting/tracking of young people that are in independent schools which distorts borough figures.

4 Feedback from YPES Board

4.1 NS provided a summary update of key points that were raised at the last Board meeting, where Munira Mirza provided a verbal update of the Mayor’s commitment to take forward the Inquiry Panel’s recommendations. It was also confirmed that the London Schools Excellence Fund, a £24 million fund to be spent over two years, would be available to FE colleges provided any proposed application included direct partnerships with schools.

4.2 A paper was put forward, at the request of the Board, to identify areas where its membership could be strengthened to reflect the new 14-19 education landscape. Three areas were outlined and members debated whether these were the right areas and the merits of each organisation proposed for membership. The Board agreed to invite a representative from Jobcentre Plus, London Higher and the London Enterprise Panel’s Skills and Employment Working Group to join the YPES Board membership.

5 Policy Update

5.1 NS provided an overview of the paper which outlined the key policy statements, changes and items of interest in relation to 14-19 education and training that had occurred since the last meeting. In particular, the new duty on Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) (paragraph 3), RPA statutory guidance (paragraph 5) and changes to 16-18 learning provider accountability (paragraph 6).

5.2 Officers welcomed the new duty on CCGs as health would be a crucial partner in the successful delivery of Education, Health and Care Plans. However, some duties placed on councils were still not mirrored for CCGs.

5.3 RPA statutory guidance offers local authorities the flexibility to develop and build systems that allow for adaptation to meet local requirements. However, there was an element of risk that boroughs duplicate efforts but it could be addressed through the pan-London referral system.

5.4 It was noted that there were a number of learning providers that failed to reach the National Minimum Standard based on the points scores set by government.

6 Consultation on Vocational Qualifications

6.1 YB circulated the initial draft response to the consultation based on the feedback provided at the LA Forum. Officers were asked to review the initial response and send any feedback to neeraj.sharma@londoncouncils.co.uk by Friday 26th April.

AP141: YPES to circulate initial vocational qualifications consultation response to OSG members for feedback.

7 Apprenticeships 16-18 Action Plan

7.1 NL explained that 16-18 apprenticeship performance in London flat-lined in 2011/12 (compared to 2010/11) and declined in the first quarter of 2012/13. Yet, the number of vacancies on National Apprenticeship Services’ (NAS) vacancy system had increased and was higher in London than this time last year.

7.2 NAS had contacted schools to make them aware of Apprenticeship opportunities available to young people in London and held meetings with borough officers where challenges had been identified. Organisations had been contracted in London to increase Apprenticeship take-up amongst 16-18 year olds.

7.3 To meet the Mayor’s target to create 250,000 by April 2016, an 18 per cent year-on-year growth would be needed from when the target was set in 2011/12. Work had been undertaken between partners to identify and implement workable solutions to meet the target i.e. securing an Apprentice Travel Concession.

7.4 Officers discussed the impact of Apprenticeships available to young people given the financial incentives for employers to create 19 plus apprenticeships due to the Work Programme. There was consensus that this may hamper the growth of the 16-18 Apprenticeship programme.

7.5 A traineeship programme to help young people aged 16 to 24 to develop the skills needed to secure Apprenticeships was scheduled to start in September 2013. Officers agreed that NAS should work closely with the Department of Education (DfE) on the development of this, so that the programme aligns to other reforms.

AP142: 18+ Apprentice Travel Concession - to be circulated to members by NAS AP143: Circulate details of providers in London funded by NAS to support YP take-up of apprenticeships

8 Work plan monitoring

8.1 The YPES team provided a summary update to OSG members of the major YPES work strands. Officers discussed the updates including the merit of exploring how the data dashboard could be sustainable in the long run and possible costs to local authorities.

8.2 Key Stage 4 Destination Measures will be published on the DfE Performance Tables website this year. However, Key Stage 5 Destination Measures will continue to be published as an experimental statistical first release, along with employment and characteristics data. Schools have received a letter to review their data before it is made public.

8.3 The High Needs Student Funding task and finish group presented a series of recommendations to the Association of London’s Directors of Children’s Services in respect of payment arrangements for students with high needs. These were now being explored with Finance Directors.

AP144: Next 14-19 Update to include details of DfE letter sent to schools requesting review of destination measures data.

9 AOB

9.1 Members were asked to note that the Raising the Participation Age - Vulnerable Young People event would take place on 29 April.

9.2 Members suggested that it would be helpful to review the terms of reference for the OSG and its relationship to the YPES Board

AP145: Next OSG to review the terms of reference for the OSG and OSG relationship to the YPES Board.

Date of next meeting: 14 June 2013, 10.00-12.00, meeting room 1, London Councils.